Democratic Hopefuls offer little hope for American workers during first debate

An interesting article from www.numbersusa.com about the Democratic presidential candidates. This follows this post about visas to displace American workers. This follows this post about the candidates for U.S. House Speaker. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here

Democratic Hopefuls offer little hope for American workers during first debate

https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax

hile the first two Republican debates showed that the large field of GOP Hopefuls are mostly split on the issue of immigration, the Democratic Hopefuls share similar positions during the Party’s first debate on Tuesday evening. There was agreement among the five Hopefuls on the issues of amnesty, in-state tuition, and eligibility for taxpayer funded health care, and no mention of protecting American workers from new massive waves of foreign workers.
There were three major takeaways from Tuesday’s debate. First, all five Hopefuls agree that 11 million illegal aliens should receive legal status and work permits to compete with American workers before any enforcement provisions are implemented. Second, it remains unclear if any of the Democratic Hopefuls would even support enforcement provisions with the possible exception of former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Third, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley stood out as the Hopeful that would give the most to illegal aliens.

Tens of millions of people on the move around the world heard a debate of one of America's major parties in which the message was repeated over and over that if they come to America illegally they will be welcomed, celebrated, made citizens and promised all kinds of special health care and college education possibilities. Democrats used to say that illegal immigration had to end after the next amnesty. Not a word tonight about the legitimacy of immigration laws in protecting the workers, the wages and the quality of life of the American people. Blue-collar Americans had to be weeping at what has become of the Party of Labor.
-- NumbersUSA President & Founder Roy Beck

Gov. O'Malley was the first to mention immigration when he touted the passage of Maryland's DREAM Act through voter referendum during his tenure. The measure offers in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who graduate from Maryland high schools. CNN debate moderator Anderson Cooper noted that Sen. Bernie Sanders also supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens and asked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she shared the same opinion.

My plan would support any state that takes that position, and would work with those states and encourage more states to do the same thing.
If their states agree, then we want more states to do the same thing.
-- Sec. Clinton

In-state tuition wasn't the only reward for illegal aliens that the Democratic Hopefuls want taxpayers to fund. Gov. O'Malley wants to also give away subsidies on the health care exchange; a position that Sec. Clinton stopped short of supporting.

I want to open up the opportunity for immigrants to be able to buy in to the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. I think to go beyond that, as I understand what Governor O'Malley has recommended, so that they would get the same subsidies . . .
. . . I think that is -- it raises so many issues. It would be very difficult to administer, it needs to be part of a comprehensive immigration reform, when we finally do get to it.
-- Sec. Clinton

Sen. Webb was more ambiguous in his answer, saying that he "wouldn't have a problem" with illegal aliens accessing the health care exchanges, but didn't say whether or not he thought they should be eligible for the subsidies. He did use the opportunity, however, to make the night's only reference to reducing illegal immigration.

No country has -- is a country without defining its borders. We need to resolve this issue. I actually introduced an amendment in the 2007 immigration bill.
-- Sen. Webb

Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee didn't have a chance to speak during the limited immigration portion of the debate, and Sen. Sanders only had one chance when he was asked by CNN Espanol anchor Juan Carlos Lopez about his opposition to the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill in 2007.

I voted against that piece of legislation because it had guest-worker provisions in it which the Southern Poverty Law Center talked about being semi-slavery. Guest workers are coming in, they're working under terrible conditions, but if they stand up for their rights, they're thrown out of the country. I was not the only progressive to vote against that legislation for that reason.
-- Sen. Sanders

No one cared to mention that Sen. Sanders supported the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill in 2013 that would have issued four-times more guest worker visas than the McCain-Kennedy bill in 2007.
On our Worker Protection Immigration Grade Cards, four of the five Hopefuls who participated in last night's debate have Fs and none of them said anything that would change their ratings. Sen. Webb is slightly better with a D+, and again, was the only one of the five to mention enforcement.
Despite a lot of other talk throughout the debate about income disparity and a struggling middle class, not one candidate indicated that they would remove the pressures placed on the middle class by high immigration levels.
CHRIS CHMIELENSKI is the Director of Content & Activism for NumbersUSA

Tags:

2016 elections

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.

JEB: Illegal aliens should be at the front of the jobs line

An interesting article from www.numbersusa.com about Jeb Bush's stand on immigration. This follows this post about California's drought. This follows this post about Fox News and their PRO-amnesty coverage. This follows this post about Texas immigration bills. This follows this post on HOW amnesty is funded in ways other than the DHS. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.



JEB: Illegal aliens should be at the front of the jobs line

s for jobless Americans, I suppose the answer is: Let them eat pie, or let them eat when there is a bigger pie.
Despite saying some pretty sensible things about immigration at the big CPAC conservative activists conference last Friday, presidential hopeful Jeb Bush displayed zero awareness that immigration issues affect working-class Americans.
FOX host Sean Hannity did his best to give Bush a chance to show concern for Americans who can't find jobs or whose wages are depressed by the country's giant surplus of workers. Perhaps Americans should have first crack at U.S. jobs, Hannity suggested.

(HANNITY) Right now at this point, the country at this moment in history, we have 50 million Americans nearly in poverty--nearly 50 million Americans on food stamps, the lowest labor participation rate since the 1970s. I want you to connect it to immigration. Shouldn't Americans have the opportunity for those jobs first? You say, go to the back of the line, but if they go to the back of the line, they still get to stay here and compete for those jobs?

Hannity was stating the gist of NumbersUSA's national ad campaign last fall in which we asked, "Who should get the next jobs?"
Nearly all supporters of "comprehensive immigration reform" or any other form of amnesty say that their plan would require illegal aliens to "go to the back of the line." But what does that mean? Since millions of Americas are in line looking for a job, then "back of the line" ought to mean that illegal aliens don't get a crack at a job until the jobless line of Americans is exhausted. Whether or not one agrees that illegal aliens should ever be allowed to have a U.S. job, surely they should not be put at the front of the jobs line, right?
I'm not aware of any supporter of "legalization" who thinks illegal aliens should go to the back of the jobs line, and Jeb Bush added himself to that list on Friday.
Bush refused to state that Americans have any priority over illegal aliens when it comes to jobs.

(BUSH) You either believe that the pie is static, that's the Left's point of view. Many on the Right don't agree with that, but with their policies, they imply it. Therefore, we're splitting up...someone's benefit is someone's else's detriment. I believe we ought to be focused on growing the economic pie, and growing it at a rate that looks more like the '80s in America. Growing it closer to four percent, not two percent. If we stay in this anemic economic rate, then your argument becomes valid, but if we grow at four percent, there's going to be opportunities for all. It's not a zero-sum game. That's not how Republicans and conservatives think. We don't think it's just all about the government divvying it up for us to get our crumbs. We believe we should pursue our dreams as we see fit, and the more people doing it with the capacity to achieve our success, the more economic growth will take place."

The way I read that answer to -- or failure to answer -- Hannity's very clear, specific question is that Bush believes the millions of illegal aliens who now have jobs should keep them and that unemployed Americans should wait until Bush's version of government is able to create enough new jobs that the Americans can then have employment, too.
Until the total economic pie gets a lot bigger, unemployed Americans stay unemployed while illegal aliens keep their jobs. That's the Jeb Bush version of who goes to the back of the line.
In fact, Bush seemed to suggest to the CPAC audience here in Washington that making illegal aliens take jobs is a part of their punishment for breaking immigration laws.

(BUSH) The simple fact is we are not going to deport 11 million people, We should give them a path to legal status, where they work, they don't receive government benefits, where they don't break the law, where they learn English, and where they make a contribution to our society. That's what we need to be focused on.

Essentially, Bush was answering Hannity in the same way that Pres. Obama's nominee for attorney general, Loretta Lynch, answered Sen. Jeff Sessions when he asked who should have priority for U.S. jobs -- illegal immigrants or U.S. citizens and legal immigrants already here. Lynch refused to say Americans have first right to the jobs and went on to indicate that if somebody is in this country illegally she wants them to be holding a job and working.
Lynch and Bush showed no sensitivity for what it is like for tens of millions of working-age Americans who do not have a job, or what that level of UNproductivity might be doing to the nation as a whole.
And it gets worse.
Both Lynch and Bush are in favor of giving work permits to millions of illegal aliens which means they not only get to keep the jobs they have but they get to compete for every new U.S. job that opens up at every level.
At least under the status quo, illegal foreign workers are unable to access the majority of jobs in America. Under the Lynch and Bush vision for America, every American would have to compete with illegal aliens for any job that becomes available.
In Bush's answers to Hannity, he indicated some respect for the essential requirement of securing U.S. borders:

(BUSH) A great country needs to enforce borders for national security purposes, public health purposes, and the rule of law. First and foremost we have to do that.

But note that he didn't say the borders need to be secure to protect the interests of economically vulnerable Americans, something that a number of Supreme Court rulings have stated is the primary reason for immigration laws.
Bush did speak against Chain Migration but then undercut the value of reducing all that unnecessary and harmful foreign labor by suggesting that the country has some kind of labor shortage..

(BUSH) . . . we need a narrow family petitioning so that it's the same as every other country, spouses and minor children, not this broad definition of spouse, minor children, adult siblings and adult parents, that crowds out what we need, which are economic driven immigrants. Those who come here to work, to invest in their dreams in this country, to create opportunities for all of us, and that's what we need to get to.

Bush had a strong answer to the border surge last year of Central Americans, saying "they should have been sent home at the border" to send a message to stop the dangerous journeys.
In the end, though, Bush showed the cluelessness of much of the national Republican establishment that when the Republican Party appeals to the needs of working-class voters -- as in 2010 and 2014 -- it wins, and when it appears to be primarily the party of the privileged it loses. Telling the unemployed of America to be patient and wait for him to enlarge the pie while he confers improved job status on millions of illegal aliens does not sound like a 2010 or 2014 message.
ROY BECK is President & Founder of NumbersUSA

Tags:

unemployment

Elitists

amnesty

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Editorial: Did Governor Chris Christie handle the crisis well?

Editorial


Last week we got to see how Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey handled a bridge crisis. The key will be whether the public is convinced that he handled it well and if he handled it better or worse than other public officials when they have their own crisis.

“I Am Not A Bridge-Closer. And Anyone Who Was Will Be Gone. Maybe Even To Prison.”

A timely post about from www.hughhewitt.com about Chris Christie and the George Washington bridge. This follows this post about Activist Traps. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

“I Am Not A Bridge-Closer. And Anyone Who Was Will Be Gone. Maybe Even To Prison.”

Thursday, January 9, 2014  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Well, that depends.  It depends on how he responds.  If with force and clarity to fire anyone connected with the abuse of their powers for political gain, he may in fact increase his stature and enhance not diminish his image.  The “bully” meme on the left is nonsense.  Every chief executive ends up with boneheaded people doing boneheaded things.
It is all about the response.  A press conference with everyone in the country watching after a day of build-up?  Well, that could even turn out to be good for the governor.  Something people recall 24 months from now in the snows of New Hampshire. (Christie shouldn’t play by Iowa’s rules –see my conversation with Reince Priebus from earlier this week.)  A press conference that sharply contrasts with every press conference ever given by President Obama, wherein the questions are  many, the answers brief and to the point, the leadership as opposed to Hamlet-tryout on display.
“Dented?”  Way too soon to say that.  Perhaps even the opposite.  Let’s see after his “I am not a bridge-closer” presser.
The real danger is not to image, as I believe Christie’s adamant denials –who would tell his or her boss such a stupid move anyway– but that a New Jersey edition of the snake Ronnie Earle slither out of some prosecutors office and try to do to Christie what Earle did to Delay (with the assistance of a willing media.)  American politics tends to criminalize everything eventually, and some ambitious local prosecutor might decide this is his trampoline to fame and fortune.  Watch that space, and the Christie presser when it comes.

A very interesting post from www.alipac.us about Chris Christie giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in New Jersey. This follows this post about immigration solutions to ask your Representative and Senators to sponsor. This follows this post about  the timeline of increased immigration under the Obama Administration. REMEMBER, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.

Chris Christie Gives Illegal Aliens Foothold in NJ Complete with in-state tuition

2

by  Alipac                                                                        

                          

1 Comment

Chris Christie will never be president of America. This two-faced liar campaigned and won the Governorship of New Jersey by criticizing his opponent, John Corzine, for supporting licenses and in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

Now, Chris Christie wants to run for the position of president and he has just signed a bill that grants in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

This means that New Jersey taxpayers will now be forced to pay thousands of dollars in taxes each year to subsidize each illegal immigrant going to their colleges. Since New Jersey colleges fill up each year, this means that illegal aliens will displace American students who need those limited seats!

Forcing taxpayers to give in-state tuition subsidies to illegal aliens will only encourage more people to illegally immigrate to America and New Jersey.

Chris Christie is clearly a liar whom no voter can trust regardless of their position on in-state tuition for illegals.

Please review the bad news for Americans and good news for illegal alien invaders and then call Chris Christie to tell him that he will never become president of America because he just ended his political career by signing in-state tuition for illegal aliens into law.

Christie Gives Illegal Aliens Access to In-State Tuition
http://www.alipac.us/content.php?r=2...-State-Tuition

Call Chris Christie and let him know how angry you are at 609-292-6000

Simple Steps to Assure Illegal Immigration is in GOP Debate‏

An urgent post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about the Border Patrol asking that the new executive amnesty be rescinded. This follows this post  about redistricting in Los Angeles to discourage illegal immigration.  This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants such as the 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso, where President Barack Obama recently bashed immigration enforcement!  For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read the very interesting book shown HERE!

And Remember when contacting public officials to please be firm but respectful. Any over the top messages could result in law enforcement action against you. Just let these senators know that you are aware of what they have done and that you intend to remove them from office in the 2012 elections.


Simple Steps to Assure Illegal Immigration is in GOP Debate‏


Friends of ALIPAC,




Many thanks to all of you that voted in the recent CBS poll online which now shows over 85% opposing Obama's stealth Amnesty efforts for illegal aliens. Congress returns to work next week and thanks to your work, Obama is in for some real political trouble.



Today, we want you to take steps to assure that illegal immigration questions are raised at the GOP Presidential debate that will be held on September 22 in Orlando, Florida.



This debate is being conducted by Fox News and Google (owners of YouTube).



They are calling for your input online. Please consider taking the following simple steps online.



Step 1: Visit this link online and read the details....

http://www.youtube.com/foxnews



Step 2: Watch the Video questions, and read through the MOST POPULAR and MOST RECENT questions and vote THUMBS UP for any good questions regarding illegal immigration. Please forgo voting for other issue questions you support as our goal is to assure illegal immigration questions (which are often suppressed and censored out) make it into the debate.



Below, you will see some examples of the written questions we want you to vote for.



Step 3: After you have voted for the good questions and videos about illegal immigration, consider adding your own question in text or by video. We are certain that many of our ALIPAC activists can come up with very good questions about illegal immigration and Amnesty to add.



Please cast your votes, add your questions, and pass this request along to a like-minded American citizen.



For a few minutes online, you could help shape the Presidential debates on September 22 if this process is legitimate. We will see.



EXAMPLES of questions to locate and vote for at

http://www.youtube.com/foxnews





"Barack Obama decreed without Congressional approval that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens will receive a reprieve from deportation. Many members of Congress say this is a backdoor Amnesty. As President, will you rescind this order?"



"Illegal immigration costs our country billions of dollars a year in emergency room care and missed taxes, just to mention a few. What specifically would you do to stop illegal immigration and to deport the illegals that are already here."



"I would like to know the position that each candidate has on the United Nation's Agenda 21 (ICLEI, Reo+20) and its attempt to destroy the sovereign status of member states, including and specifically the United States of America."



"The United States does not require proof of citizenship to enroll a child in a public school. As a result of this, school districts around the country are struggling to meet their financial needs. What would you do to remedy this problem?"



"What will you do to protect ALL of our borders--Mexican, Canadian, and both coasts?"





Thank you very much for your support and volunteerism in our fight against illegal immigration and Amnesty.



Sincerely,





William Gheen and The ALIPAC Team

http://www.alipac.us/

The Next U.S. Leader - Who Would God Choose?

An interesting article from www.ucg.org about U.S. leadership. This follows this post about Russia, China, India, and other Eurasian nations forming an alliance.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

The Next U.S. Leader - Who Would God Choose?



A commentary by Rex Sexton




What kind of leader would God choose for the United States?





Source: Photos.comSad to say, but the U.S. presidential election of 2012 is already under way. Never mind the fact that the election won't take place for another year and a half, this week several candidates announced they are off and running, while others announced that they will not run this year. Others are keeping the political pundits in suspense. In 1960 the candidates did not announce their intentions or begin running until spring, barely six months prior to the election.



What has caused the change? In part, it is money. President Obama has already stated that he needs to raise one billion dollars for a campaign. That's right, one billion dollars will be spent by one candidate to get elected to an office that pays .025 percent of that each year as a salary. It takes a lot of time to raise that kind of money and spend it on advertisements and events.



Voters will be swamped and smothered by advertisements. As most of us know, political advertisements rarely stick to the facts and often contain malicious half-truths, false accusations or slander of some kind. What is obvious is that we are dealing with the same problems year after year. Few problems ever seem to get solved. Men know how to talk about problems, but lack the courage and integrity to solve them. The solution often is to spend more money with good intentions and dubious results, but western nations are running out of money. Nearly sixty percent of the U.S. population is living off of a government check of some kind, and the percentage that does not pay income taxes is almost larger than those who do. A study of the history of nations reveals that financial collapse follows moral collapse, which we have witnessed for many years.



What kind of leader would God choose for us if we were a righteous nation? The answer is given by Jethro, Moses' father in law, in Exodus 18. Moses could not handle all of the decisions brought to him, so Jethro counseled him to appoint captains of 10, 50, 100 and 1,000 families. Israel had its first formal organization: "Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens" (Exodus:18:21Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:).



Notice that these men were to have four qualities: 1. Men of ability, 2. Fearing God, 3. Men of truth and 4. Hating bribery or unjust gain. Would it not be wonderful if we had such men governing nations today! Instead, in all too many cases our systems bring out the venal, narcissistic, proud, ambitious, dishonest, godless, bribe-giving and taking, arrogant and self-centered types. Character matters, always. God said so.



There are still many genuine servants of our nation and others in positions of governance, but they appear to be in the minority and becoming fewer all the time. Just as it was in Ancient Rome, so it is with us today. Rome lasted over 300 years after the moral decay had set in as reflected in its leaders. Due to modern communication our decline has accelerated much faster and our end result will be here before many people realize what is taking place.



For more on this subject about choosing leaders, and for some startling answers, watch our video program titled: "Could Jesus Be Elected President?"or read the Good News magazine article, "Could Jesus Christ Be Elected President?". http://www.ucg.org/commentary/next-us-leader-who-would-god-choose/

.

Graft, Greed and Waste in State Government: New Mexico Edition

An interesting development on the state of New Mexico's governer from http://www.biggovernment.com/ This follows this previous article about the Congressman from El Paso, Texas and for more interesting articles like this, subsribe to this blog here.


Graft, Greed and Waste in State Government: New Mexico Edition
by Doug Turner
In early 2008, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson grabbed national attention when he ran for the Democratic nomination for President. He dropped out early in the race but still made headlines for endorsing Obama over Hillary. As thanks, Richardson was named the nominee for Commerce Secretary. One of the first scandals of the Obama Administration followed almost immediately. Due to a controversy surrounding a pay-to-play scandal, Richardson was forced to withdraw his name from consideration after only one month.
Richardson quietly slipped out of the national spotlight and most Americans forgot about New Mexico’s corrupt Governor. Most don’t realize that prosecution for the scandal was quietly discontinued when the Obama team drained the investigator’s budget resource, leaving them unable to pursue prosecution. The case is still pending and will likely remain that way.
Now back in New Mexico in his final year as Governor, the behavior of a man who was an inconvenient nuisance to the Obama team has revealed itself to be nearly cataclysmic to my state’s future.
Just seven years ago, New Mexico was one of only a handful of states in the black, thanks to the leadership of our previous Republican Governor. Now, we’ve got an estimated $500 million deficit this year thanks to a government that continues to loot the pockets of taxpayers.
Aside from the absurd corruption, pay-to-play scandals and shady investment deals one of the most obvious evidence of poor management is the sheer size of New Mexico’s government. With new state agencies and 4,500 new employees, our state government has grown by more than 50% in the last 7 years costing taxpayers $250 million annually. Further, the numbers don’t even include the hundreds of exempt political appointees now drawing a government paycheck. Those people got jobs as payback for family, favors and financial contributions. Estimates put new political appointees in the neighborhood of 450 costing taxpayers around $50 million a year.
Already I’ve accounted for more than half the budget shortfall, and I haven’t even begun to talk about the fraudulent investment schemes, pay-to-play scandals and pork projects that have nearly sunk our state.
To put it into perspective, for every 100 private sector employees there are 24 state and local government employees. The average ratio is 12 per 100. I can assure you, my interaction with government in this state is not twice as good as it was seven years ago.
And now, the Governor who doubled the size of government has to find a way to pay for his distends. His answer? Well, it isn’t cutting state employees. And it isn’t cutting unfriendly regulations to grow small business. Nope. His answer is—you guessed it—NEW TAXES. During our last legislative session, lawmakers proposed taxes on candy, cigarettes, soda and even tortillas.
All proposals died a slow death and our legislatures failed to come up with a budget. Now, they’ve been called in to a special session that begins next week.
I am running for Governor of New Mexico to put an end to the graft, greed and waste that has run rampant in New Mexico.
The moment I am elected, I will immediately demand the resignation of every unnecessary political appointment. I made a pledge this week to roll back the number from over 600 to 167. I have called upon the Democratic candidate, Lt. Governor Diane Denish, to make the same pledge. The Lt. Governor has been trying to distance herself from the present administration’s defective distends, but a promise to return to a reasonable number of political positions would be a substantive statement, should she be willing to make it. Sadly, I expect silence will be her response.
The issue of bloated government is not limited to New Mexico. The waste here is merely a reflection of the corruption that is occurring nationally. For those among us who challenge the wisdom of Federal Stimulus dollars, look no further than the state of New Mexico for evidence of its failings. Those dollars only fuel our inefficient government and do nothing to force our government to fix itself.

AMERICA: ROACH MOTEL

An archived article from http://www.anncoulter.com/ when W was president that explains why the current groundswell wasn't there then or in the 2008 elections. Hopefully in 2012 there is a better candidate to support! :)

BUSH'S AMERICA: ROACH MOTEL

June 6, 2007

Republicans' defense of President Bush's immigration bill is more enraging than their defense of Harriet Miers. Back then, Bush's conservative base was accused of being sexist for opposing an unqualified woman's nomination to the highest court in the land. Now we're racists for not wanting to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

I don't know why conservatives like Linda Chavez have to argue like liberals by smearing their opponents as racists. Oh wait, now I remember! Their arguments are as strong as liberals' arguments usually are.

Apart from abortion, no subject produces so much disingenuousness as America's immigration policy, both legal and illegal. For nearly 50 years, Americans have been intentionally lied to about our immigration laws.

In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation's demographics. Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My word, but that man could drink in those days.

With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an "Irish Need Not Apply" sign!)

http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/perfect-alibi-ill-drink-to-that-part-ii.html

Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries.

Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.

But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback's a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!

Some of those hardworking immigrants who just want a chance to succeed were arrested in a plot to blow up JFK Airport last week.

Most immigrants still come from a handful of countries; Kennedy simply changed which countries those would be. In 2005, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the overwhelming majority of immigrants came from only 10 countries, none of which had sent a lot of immigrants to America for the country's first 200 years: Mexico (161,445), India (84,681), China (69,967), the Philippines (60,748), Cuba (36,261), Vietnam (32,784), the Dominican Republic (27,504), Korea (26,562), Colombia (25,571) and Ukraine (22,761).

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

We needed to have "more discussion" about Iraq for nearly two years before finally invading. When will we be allowed to begin discussion of a government policy enacted by stealth 40 years ago specifically intended to decimate one particular ethnic group in our own country?

If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation's history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.

And as long as we're adopting an open borders policy for immigration, how about opening the borders for emigration? As it stands, anyone can come in and start plotting terrorist attacks or collecting government services right away. But the rest of us can never escape having to pay for it.

You can leave the country, you can renounce your citizenship — but you still owe taxes for 10 years. The government does not allow us to stop supporting welfare recipients in America, millions more of whom it plans to import under Bush's bill. That's not a free market — it's a roach motel.

If these free-marketeers at The Wall Street Journal want the free movement of people, how about letting us freely leave after they've wrecked the country?

In Samuel P. Huntington's book "Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity," he asks: "Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no. It would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico or Brazil."

I don't want to live in Mexico, Quebec or Brazil. But now I guess I have no choice, since "open borders" means I can never leave.

See also here for the book http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54400099&referer=brief_results

Palin in Roswell

Palin tones it down in Roswell. The crowd does the rest
By Ben Wright
Story with PICS!! here:http://newspapertree.com/news/2963-palin-tones-it-down-in-roswell-the-crowd-does-the-rest

With “Eye of the Tiger” blaring from the speaker-system, Palin emerged to an enraptured crowd, waving with one hand and holding her baby son, Trig, in the other. The combination of mother-child-politico to soundtrack was part movie, part revival and part Latin-American revolution.

La Madonna de los Republicanos had arrived.
Posted on October 20, 2008
On the coat tails of Joe Biden , Sarah Palin toned down her language and responded to recent criticism before a large crowd at the Roswell International Air Center, yesterday.
“It’s ridiculous that I have to preface so many of my comments with ‘it's not negative’,” said the Alaska governor before a 10,000 strong crowd of New Mexicans and Texans. Her speech marked a shift from the heightened vitriol of the last few weeks. William Ayers had been dropped from the teleprompter altogether while the general anti-Obaman rhetoric was more measured and specific.
“It’s been like this since nine o’clock” said a security official monitoring the snaking line of thousands outside the airport hangar-come-political arena. The hot day saw several people carried out of the crowd before Palin spoke, and several more during her address.
Chants of “Sarah! Sarah!” punctuated the speeches preceding Palin, which included a 20-minute set by country star Hank Williams Jr. Williams was in fine form revving up the crowd with his funny politicized drawl.

Whatever one thinks of the Republicans, they know how to put on one heck of a show. After Williams, the “McCain-Palin” jet taxied into the cheering crowd’s line of vision. Out of it frantically poured the secret service and representatives of the national media who funnelled into the press area, brushing aside as many local reporters as possible. The local folks had been there for several hours and had taken all the good spots.
With “Eye of the Tiger” blaring from the speaker-system, Palin emerged to an enraptured crowd, waving with one hand and holding her baby son, Trig, in the other. The combination of mother-child-politico to soundtrack was part movie, part revival and part Latin-American revolution.
La Madonna de los Republicanos had arrived.

Hank Williams Jr. reappeared on stage with Palin to lead the national anthem. He then sang “the McCain-Palin tradition,” which included swipes at Bill Clinton, the “left-wing liberal media” and “Democrat liberal hoodoo.” Palin stood behind smiling and clapping, having effectively outsourced the cheap shots to Williams.
In her speech, Palin sounded statesmanlike, mentioning neither Professor Ayers nor terrorists.
The speech
“I am glad to be here, live from Roswell on Sunday afternoon,” said Palin, referring to her appearance on Saturday Night Live the night before. She got straight to business after that, seldom making jokes and concentrating on the taxation, the economy and Obama’s record.
“It would be nice to hear Obama says he wants us to win,” Palin said regarding Obama’s stance on the surge in Iraq, comparing him to Senator McCain who “isn't afraid to use the word victory.” She lambasted Obama for deciding to run after only 304 days in the Senate and dismissed accusations of negativity and fear mongering by bringing up Obama’s connections.
“It’s not negative... you deserve all the answers … These associations are important because they go to the heart of a person’s judgement,” Palin said, prefacing her exposition of Obama’s ties to Acorn. Bringing up their endorsement of him and their contributions to his campaign she quipped, “they’re working pretty doggone hard on his behalf.”
“It is not mean spirited or negative when you call them on their record and ask them about their intentions … It’s time we call Obama on it,” said the governor, referring to his taxation policy. The audience greeted his “tax credit” plan with a round of boos before Palin dipped into the details.
If 40 per cent of Americans were to receive a tax credit then, she said, “where's he going to get the money from?”
“Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairyman,” was her answer. Ed is a new edition to the McCain-Palin entourage. Obama’s “spreading the wealth” proposal would kill the businesses “that Joe the Plumber dreams of owning and Ed the Dairyman dreams of growing,” she said.
“Now is not the time to experiment with socialism,” and paying higher taxes is not “patriotic,” as Biden says,” she said. “To Ed the Dairyman and Joe the Plumber, it sounds more like socialism”
“A great time of worry and hardship,” was how Palin described the present climate as she blamed economic problems on “corruption and greed in Wall Street and Washington.” McCain and Palin would “get the economy back on the right track” and “put government back on your side.”
“You can do the math or just go with your gut,” Palin said of the Republican ticket’s tax plan that would “absolutely lower your income taxes,” cut capital gains tax and “keep American business in America.”
In closing, she said the nation has a “choice between a politician who puts his faith in Washington and a leader who puts his faith in you.”
“We have a vision of America where every life counts,” she said. “That is the spirit I want to bring to Washington.”
She asserted that the election was “going to come down to what we believe in.” Invoking President Reagan, she proceeded to flesh out what she meant.
“America is not the problem, America is the solution. ... We make mistakes but we learn from them.” The American Way was comprised of “perfect ideals.”
“America is that beacon of hope for all. We still believe that we are that shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan used to speak of.”
Palin left the crowd to roars, not just cheers. While the event was emotionally charged, it appeared more attenuated compared to those of two weeks ago. “USA, USA” wasn’t chanted at any time during the day and the press were asked not to interview anyone in the crowd once inside.
One last thing…
During the day, I befriended an ex-military fellow filming the event, who in turn shined up to the Secret Service agents. At one point during Palin’s speech, the men in black began shuffling around behind us and talking into their earpieces. My military friend inquired. He was discretely informed that John McCain was on the plane and was planning to make a surprise appearance.
In the end, the senator didn’t show, but the crowd seemed happy enough with the governor.

* * * Ben Wright is a volunteer Newspaper Tree contributor who is English and living in El Paso
Photo Gallery

Sarah Palin on SNL

If you are interested, here is the video of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (SNL).

Sarah Palin's Guest Appearance on Saturday Night Live
By Noel Sheppard (Bio Archive)

October 19, 2008
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/19/sarah-palins-guest-appearance-saturday-night-live

Questions for Candidates

If you have been watching the news about the U.S. Presidential Election, you might find the article below interesting. Of course the coming King of the Kingdom of God will do more for us than any candidate, which puts Him above politics, and if you haven't reread it recently, now is a good time to reread Jesus Christ: The Real Story http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/JC/

15 Questions Rick Warren Should Ask Obama and McCain
Gregg JacksonThursday, August 07, 2008
Pastor Rick Warren, author of the “Purpose Driven Life,” will be hosting a “Compassion Forum” August 16th at Saddleback Church in California in which he will be asking questions to both presidential candidates Senators Obama and McCain. According to a recent NY Times article, Mr. Warren was quoted as saying:“Since I’m their friend, I’m not going to give them any gotcha questions,” Mr. Warren said, adding that a typical query would be, “What’s the most difficult decision you’ve had to make, and how did you make it?”Setting aside for the moment the fact that we as Christians have a solemn obligation to speak prophetically to the world about Christ and His Word even if what we say makes our “friends” uncomfortable, as a Christian, interested in knowing specifically where the candidates stand on issues in relation to their Christian faith, not only do I want to know what the most difficult decisions they’ve had to make are, but how their personal relationship with Jesus Christ and His Word actually informed and influenced those decisions. The “Compassion Forum” will focus on global poverty, HIV, and the environment, which are all issues that should be of concern to all Christians. But I hope that Mr. Warren will also pose questions regarding the great social and cultural issues of our time including abortion, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex “marriage,” and the mainstreaming of homosexuality. People can watch turn on any of the mainstream networks for non-threatening softball questions for the candidates. Mr. Warren should use his forum as an opportunity to ask the difficult and challenging questions not often heard in a presidential campaign. This may be his last opportunity before it becomes a “hate crime” to do so.Here are some questions I suggest Mr. Warren asks candidates Obama and McCain:
1. For both candidates: What is truth? Who is truth? And Is that truth transcendent and applicable at all times to everyone regardless of their impulses, behavioral preferences, desires, wants, nationality, ethnicity, religious dogma, gender, race, etc?
2. Sen. Obama, you have said you are personally pro-life but in favor of abortion rights up to and even including after delivery in some cases. Why are you pro-life personally if an abortion doesn't actually kill a baby in her mother's womb? Also, do you think Jesus would be in favor of abortion? Why or why not?
3. Sen. McCain, you claim to be personally pro-life as well. Why? And if you believe that abortion always ends the life of the developing baby in her mother's womb, why would it be ok for individual states to legalize killing babies? Don't our nation's founding documents the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, pursuit of happiness") and Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) guarantee the right to life that no individual state can violate?
4. Sen. Obama, Do you believe that homosexual behavior, as God says in His Word, is unnatural, deviant, and self-destructive? As a follow-up, some have said that we shouldn't worry about homosexuality because Jesus never said anything about it specifically. Well, in case you're planning on going down the same Scriptural-ignorant road, Jesus never spoke about crack cocaine, racism, and suicide, either. So are those things okay? And the Gospel of John says that in the beginning was the Word, that the Word became flesh, and that the Word was Jesus Himself. So, since "all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable" the entire Bible is about Jesus, and that's the same Jesus that affirmed marriage as one man and one woman in the Gospels as well. Therefore, as a Christian how do you find yourself on the opposite end of an issue from Jesus?
5. Sen. McCain, You said of same-sex marriage: "I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that, I don't have any problem with that." Do you stand by that statement, as you have also stated that you personally oppose same-sex "marriage?" You don't offer a section on your website dedicated to this issue, which continues to make national headlines. And it's also making headlines in your own state. Recently, Dr. James Dobson expressed regret that you weren't more public in your support for a marriage initiative in your state, and since you support individual states' rights to defend the institution of marriage, do you agree with Dr. Dobson that you haven't been forthright enough on this issue?6. Sen. McCain, The California Supreme Court here in California recently postulated that limiting marriage between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter you appeared on the "Ellen DeGeneres Show" and didn't respond to Ellen's comment that she could "now legally get married." You have said that issues such as abortion and marriage should be decided via the voters of the individual states. Since the voters in California already voted to define marriage in 2000 (by 61%) as the legal union of one man and one woman, and since that voter approved statute has not changed and can't unless revoked by the people themselves, why did you not remind Ellen that "gay marriage" isn't legal in California because the courts' declaratory opinion, containing no court order, hasn't changed the current marriage statute which does not include any provision for members of the same sex to marry?
7. Sen. Obama, Jesus repeatedly says in the Bible that He is the only source and giver of eternal life. (John 5:21-25, John 6:40, John 14:6, john 17:3, John 6:22, Acts 4:12, Acts 10:42-43, 1 Tim 2;5-6, 1 John 5:11-12, Rev 7:9-12). Yet as a Christian you have stated that there are many sources of truth and eternal life and that even non-Christians go to heaven. How do you reconcile your view that there are many ways to achieve eternal life in Heaven with what Jesus said (i.e. that He is the only way)?
8. Sen. McCain, during an interview with Charles Gibson on "Good Morning America," President Bush was asked: "Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind?" Bush replied, "Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there..." Do you agree with President Bush? Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind? What is the source of your opinion on this matter?
9. Sen. Obama, you support federal sexual orientation non-discrimination laws and if elected would sign the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Under that law, religious organizations and churches would have to hire cross dressers and transvestites, for example, or face criminal fines and prosecution. Why should a church like ours that believes, based on what the Scriptures say, that homosexuality is a perversion of God's natural law, be forced by the government to hire practicing homosexuals or face criminal charges?
10. Question for both: Can we ever expect God's divine protection and blessings in this country if we continue to kill 4,000 babies per day?
11. Question for both: What specific Bible verses are most encouraging to you that sustain you in times of personal crisis?
12. Question for both: 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Do you agree that every word of the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative, infallible word of God? If not, how do you determine what is God breathed and what isn’t?
13. Question for both: What has your personal salvation meant to you in your life? Who is Jesus in your life?
14. Question for both: How much will reading God's word and daily prayer influence what you do in the Oval Office if elected?
15. Questions for both: What is the message of the Gospel?
www.townhall.com